Saturday, July 24, 2010

UPDATE : It looks like ABC got rid of the Nightline interviews with Floyd Landis which were on their website upto this afternoon. They suddenly disappeared. We obtained another full copy of the show from Hulu.

I recorded almost 15 minutes of it, but missed out the last 2 minutes of the ending sequence with Betsy Andreu, who came across as a very bold, confident woman not afraid to face the cameras. The whole interview as televised was short, much to my chagrin, in spite of ABC claiming they had over 90 minutes of talk time with Floyd.

Main highlights of the Nightline segment :

1) There is no Santa Claus in cycling. He hates to break it to people. He's not afraid to tell it.

2) If Lance didn't win the Tour, someone else would have won it and every single one of them was doped to the gills.

3) He was given testosterone patches by Lance Armstrong.

4) He saw Lance take PED's like EPO and blood boosters at several training camps "multiple times".

5) Team U.S Postal riders would dope on the team bus, 300mL of blood or so typical.

6) The team checked into several anonymous hotels to dope. Techniques, among others, included taping blood bags on room walls overhead. Gravity then played its role as the blood entered through the veins of the riders. One or two doctors always supervised.

7) He feels relieved telling the truth. He never felt at ease lying before.

Full episode (only available in the U.S) :

The following are low quality backups (with sync issues) in case Hulu decides to go zulu on us :

35 comments:

LA has been tested 300 times now?? Where are the details for this? Plus there had been no test to detect autologous blood doping. He can say he was tested as many times as he dreams, that don't mean a thing if the test can't catch you!

The groupies who vehemently defend LA by pouring water over Landis' story (credibility issues) has nothing to say when they hear Emma or Betsy.... People do forget this is not one person making the allegations. Can't wait for Mike Anderson and Mcllavain to be subpoenaed. We can see who has the real credibility and I already know the answer.

I understand that Floyd is pissed and whether Lance cheated or not is of no relevance anymore. Lance passed his bio markers testing on all 7 TdF's and that is that.... Floyd did not.

Do I like ......Lance Armstrong?

As an athlete, heck yes... even on his worst day maybe even with asthma attack that man is faster than I or my husband are ever going to be. His training ethic and the innovations that have come out of his tenure with the TdF have changed the sport of cycling forever....

As a person.... I did for awhile back when he beat cancer but nowadays no not really. I think that he has been given a super hero status in this country to do whatever he wants with no social repercussions (ie. cheating on his wife and etc). But all the social stupidity doesn't replace or discount the fact that the man is a world class athlete.

So, is there something that the Federal investigative service and US Congress is going to be able to find or do to Lance Armstrong that the TdF official governing body couldn't? I highly doubt it, so why waste tax payers money searching for a truth that may not be out there?

If you don't believe me rewind your clocks and watch the video testimony of Mark McGuire being asked whether he was doping when he was gunning to break the single season home run record. I for one learned for a big guy than man can dance and spin really well.

Now that you have replayed that in your mind ... now tell me again how getting Lance on the stand is going to compel him to spill the beans and tarnish his legacy? Please.

Ultimately in the end Floyd isn't mad that he cheated and ruined his reputation... he's mad that he did it and got caught plain and simple. But what a case of sour grapes and arrogance to say "if I hadn't won the tour the year that I was doping someone else who was doping would have won".

Sad sad day for once upon a time TdF athlete that even on his worst day is still a damn fast rider.

The naiveté of the Lance fanboys in the face of the evidence in front of their noses is not surprising - they're invested in Lance and will always deny what is obvious to anyone who has followed cycling and Lance in the past 20 years. Nice website, dude!

@khayes : I say let people see the other side of the grass to Lance Armstrong's history. It is refreshing and an exercise in critical thinking. Its like that book that came out that I greatly enjoyed - "The people's history of the United States". Except here, for a long time, the people's history of cycling has been controlled by powerful forces in the cycling industry and within the governing bodies. The cancer community and drug companies have also followed suit by jumping on the Lance Armstrong bandwagon.

Its an immensely cleansing experience to hear the truth about doping, fraud and coverups on a massive worldwide scale. Such is the greed of people in the quest to win, win, win.

@Ron - with you all the way on that, dude. The Nightline tv program will be seen clearly for what it is - a major turning point in the LA doping story. Up to now it's been Greg LeMond, Cycling News, David Walsh's "From Lloyd to Landis", the Paul Kimmage book, WSJ, etc. that has been bringing out the truth on doping in cycling and the public has only heard snippets of it all. This ratchets up the pressure on LA Inc. and increases the possibility that Jeff Novitzky will be allowed to do his work successfully and unimpeded.

P.S. I was feeling sorry for Lance until he started throwing dirt (100% unsubstantiated) @ Greg LeMond's epic 1989 victory over Laurent Fignon - and I was, and am, a Fignon fan. Greg may well have been a doper, as Laurent apparently was, but there is no real story there so far.

FYI : If the last video frm ABC is not playing for you guys, it must be that ABC pulled them out off their website. As far as I can see, they're missing. Which is why it may show "loading" . Two people confirmed this already with me. I'm now tweeting Neal Karlinsky to find out what's going on.

I used to be a huge of Armstrong but to be honest he has shown his true colours at last and I find him obnoxious. I believe Floyd and feel really sorry for the guy. Only trouble is, Armstrong probably has an army of fall guys willing to cover fir him, and his 'fans' will never believe he doped.

Ron,I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from you on mechanical issues. However, with Armstrong I want to be as objective as possible. I would think as a engineer with a propensity for science you would too. I find your bias and hatred toward Armstrong to be over the top.

I don't want to defend him, but there is absolutely nothing new in this story. In fact it left out the whole issue of Landis begging for a spot on team RS and getting snubbed. Plus the reporter never asked if Landis would return the money from his "defense" fund since he felt so guilty. I guess it's ok to feel guilty as long as you don't have to give money back.

Did you read the article in Bicycling magazine from the author of Landis's book? She is the editor of the magazine. Landis spent hours with her. She spent months writing. She is sick over how he totally duped her with his lies. In many ways you could postulate that Landis is only interested in resurrecting his own career (the t-shirt doesn't help).

Lance is not a person I would ever want to hang out with, but I have to respect his accomplishments both on and off the bike. I understand the "big picture" and agree there should be a credible investigation. Question is if it is inconclusive will you let up? Or, will you say it was tainted because of Lance's power. influence, etc.

I don't want to pass judgment yet. This whole thing has turned into a propaganda war and you are pushing a very biased agenda. Certainly there is a lot of circumstantial evidence but it has not undergone any scrutiny at all.

Did you read the legal filings in the suit between Greg LeMond and Trek? LeMond was selling bikes he got from Trek left and right undercutting Trek dealers. Then he asked for more. Now it's shocking Postal did the same thing? Speaking of that, why did LeMond settle privately? He easily could have issued subpoenas for everyone involved and made them testify under oath but he chose not to do that and settled. I would love to know why he decided not to get testimony on the record. It was right there for him. But I digress...

In the end Lance will either be known as the best doper that ever lived (having never been caught after more tests than anyone) or a pretty good bike rider. He also inspired a hell of a lot of people/families dealing with cancer. Not to mention the contributions from his foundation for research.

Yeah, I know he was "caught". Again...Never put under scrutiny.

It will be interesting when a good defense attorney starts drilling down into the validity and quality of the evidence against Armstrong. Not to mention the credibility of the witnesses.

If he is proven guilty he should be stripped of all his wins. If not people like you should issue a very public apology. Until then please don't be such a hater. It really taints all the good work you do.

With or without the drugs Armstrong has done more in his life than you, me, and 100 other people combined. He deserves the benefit of being publicly considered innocent until proven guilty. Privately we are all entitled to our opinions. If he is proven guilty he will get what he deserves.

You'll get a fresh, difference of opinion here. I'll consider an apology based on how him and his minions get acquitted. Meanwhile, he owes considerable more apologies to all his fans he let down. Out of 10 million people, atleast 50,000 should feel cheated by now. Maybe 10,000 of them were people living with cancer and they are shaken with this news. Maybe 40,000 are young kids who think of him as some kind of hero.

I hate to break it to you if you're new to the sport. If you know the history of cycling, you know there are no fairy tales here. You can start burning some midnight oil and do research. Read lots of books. Ask lots of questions.

"Anonymous said... I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from you on mechanical issues. However, with Armstrong I want to be as objective as possible. I would think as a engineer with a propensity for science you would too. I find your bias and hatred toward Armstrong to be over the top. I don't want to defend him, but there is absolutely nothing new in this story. In fact it left out the whole issue of Landis begging for a spot on team RS and getting snubbed. Plus the reporter never asked if Landis would return the money from his "defense" fund since he felt so guilty. I guess it's ok to feel guilty as long as you don't have to give money back..."

It's hard to take serious claims of bias and hatred made by someone who hides beyond the shield of anonymity.

In fact, I think it's downright pathetic and cowardly to accuse this blog/its author of two things as heinous as "hatred" and "bias" - without even naming yourself.

Big deal. Anyone can bray about persecution from the safety of their firewall. Unless you think Landis is going to order a hit against you for defending Lance, show yourself and reveal your identity before you slander the author whose posts you read...

For the vocal congregation of the Church of Lance, don't you think he has defrauded the public of much more money than Floyd?

Take your time do the reading & research, the story around Lance is long, & complex. It has little to do with passed drug tests.Much like modern media, where every story is distilled into a 5 second sound bite, scrutiny is dismissed on a tiny piece of the puzzle. A more encompassing view needs to be taken.

Lance the athlete has taken the sport the wrong directing. To endorse his achievements by proclaiming him at worst the best of the cheaters is a disservice. As the top cyclist of his time, he created an environment which other athletes where also forced to cheat.

Just as the sport was picking itself of the floor from the Festina scandal, when there may have been opportunity to cleanse itself, Armstrong (& his team) plied their trade into the structure of the sport...masked by the miracle of his recovery... a story that belied scrutiny.

We need to go back and identify the cheats, not to turn a blind eye...nor shield them by the time worn excuse of "it was in the past...we must look forward"

The shield protecting him is powerful (Cancer)... To question him or his achievements is to be branded a heretic.

Followers are blinded & largely gullible to the spin spoon fed to them. Stand back and take in the whole picture. This is a flawed, but ambitious man ... His path (doping) was in place long before cancer...

So many people (need to) have a irrational belief in miracles. Lance is a product of a natural desire to live & modern medical technology...

His cycling achievements are a result of the desire to win at all cost...enhanced by modern medical technologyCheating was an acceptable route if it provided the result.

Somehow the two stories have become blended...for profit & legacy.

His myth needs to be exposed along with his clergy (Bruyneel, Stapleton, et al) ...

MP,First of all I posted anonymously because I am only given a handful of choices in the drop down box. I don't have a url, etc. Kind of funny you bring this up at the same time Ron suggests providing a anonymous website for doping insiders to tell the truth. Hypocrisy? If it is that important to you I will give you my name. I am just a average person. No skin in this race.

I am not claiming to deny that doping was prevalent during all the years Lance won. Please don't automatically stereotype me as a follower. I have read a lot and do have my own opinions. I was trying to stay away from specifically defending Lance. Instead I simply wanted to point out that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence since this is a criminal investigation. This blog has already convicted him many times over based on evidence that has never been scrutinized under oath by a good defense attorney. And provided by witnesses that are not exactly pillars of moral fortitude. Yes, I do think it has become personal for you and I find it discouraging. If this investigation proves what you are convinced it will then I agree. Armstrong will have let more people down then I can count. And bad things should happen to him and all involved. If however he is exonerated I hope you will accept it and move on.

Keep in mind that regardless of Armstrong's guilt or innocence the Livestrong foundation has helped thousands of people find information and make decisions about cancer treatment. Those folks could care less about doping 6 years ago.

Of course there are no fairy tales. And the idea that life is fair is a myth too. If I could influence my income from 30-50K (or whatever he was paid when he turned pro) to millions by taking a few shots it would be tempting. Especially if all the other top pros were doing it. Every occupation has stories of people who gamed the system to get ahead. That's life.

My point is that our justice system is based on the presumption on innocence (I am not defending anyone here) just trying to respect the legal process. It seems to me like a contradiction when folks are so high and mighty about morals, ethics, right vs. wrong regarding doping but disregard the basic tenants of our justice system which is founded on the basis of fairness and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

@Anonymous : I have an interesting question for you. Why doesn't Lance respect Lemond's "presumption of innocence" before goes in front of the media saying he thinks Lemond doped in 1989? And there's no proof, nothing whatsoever! Presumption of innocense should work for him, but he can't work it for others eh? Too bad. He's given Lemond and his family a living nightmare for over a decade, not to mention this guy has harrasAed many other people who spoke against him, including reputed, credible journalists and racers. It has become so shameful. The hero worship is so great that when Lance spits at someone in a press conference, 5 million others spit at the same person without knowing a thing about them or their background.

I also have another interesting question.

Bernie Madoff, who cheated hundreds of people of millions of dollars, undertook some charity work for the Gift of Life Bone Marrow Foundation and made philanthropic gifts through The Madoff Family Foundation, a $19 million private foundation, which he managed along with his wife. They even donated money to hospitals and theaters. Suppose you were one of the people who lost a lot of money because of him but you also knew that he did some charity work, would you go tell the justice system 'look, I think Madoff has done a great service to hospitals and theatres, therefore, he should be considered for a less severe punishment and or freed of guilt'?

DO YOU THINK THE JUSTICE SYSTEM EVEN CARES IF HE DID SOMETHING FOR CANCER CHARITY WHEN THEY HANDLE THIS CASE? Will that be good for their integrity if their decision is swayed by what a person does philanthropically when he is clearly a crook?

To me that is ridiculous. Infact, what all these Livestrongers of the Livestrong cult are doing is trying to keep a myth alive by throwing about the alleged cancer contributions around, while allegations after allegations and circumstantial evidence after circumstantial evidence hit them like a freight train going at 110 mph.

I also have another interesting question for you.

Why do you think Landis is out to resurrect a career? Yes, he has nothing to lose and he has little money to pay back right now. Don't you think it is equally possible that he's telling the truth in the light of those facts and that he must have taken considerable consulting and legal advice before choosing to whistleblow? I mean this is a serious affair here , next thing you know, he could even be shot on a street in Oregon by some Livestronger for doing this. Don't you think he has rights too (Whislteblowers Act/Sarbanes Oxley?)

The reason I'm biased against Armstrong is because I was a Livestronger too a while back. For the same reason that many people including authors felt cheated after Landis made his claims, I feel cheated for having "donated" money to buy yellow merchandize all the while thinking this myth was real. If you think its okay for the Bicycling Magazine's author to feel cheated, other people do too. We have to right to feel cheated and make allegations against people. I for one do not choose to rail against Armstrong blindly but do so with lots of material at hand. Others may not be so kind. You should check cycling forums around the world. People genuinely feel he has shamed the sport and made it into a circus, one that involves taking drugs and pushing others to take drugs, thus endangering life and reputation for a stupid yellow jersey.

There is much hiding out there to be uncovered vis a vis Mr Armstrong. His stature as a fund raiser is not the issue.

In terms of cycling, I have been disappointed with him since his narrow focus on just the TdF and excluding the grind of a full cycling season as did the other five time TdF winners. had he rode as much and won as much as them then i doubt he would have reached 5 wins, much less 7.

As for Tyra Wahl's comments "the innovations that have come out of his tenure with the TdF have changed the sport of cycling forever" …. really how? Cyclin gash been the same for the past 100 years.

What he changed was in Marketing and having big $ behind him so that his teams were always stacked with the best in order to support him as long as possible. Did he ever have a mediocre team during his 7 wins. Nope.

The real story is the Tailwind corporation and the heavy funding sources such as Thomas Weisel, Why did Mr Weisel financially back Mr Armstrong?

And what is the real relationship of Mr Armstrong and il "Dottore" Ferrari?

Dear Anon, I'm posting this as name/URL with my name and no URL, so it's not hard to do.

FWIW, I think the reading of Loren Mooney's Bicycling piece is wrong -- I don't think she does feel cheated; in fact, she got paid. The main downside for her is the possible taint on her credibility, which is what the note is really defending, reasonably. Loren, like me, and like Bonnie Ford, knew all along there was a high probability of something else being hidden, and it probably involved Armstrong.

There was 90 minutes of interview, of which we saw maybe 9, and ABC picked what we saw, not Landis. Landis has said, in the Bonnie Ford/ESPN pieces, that he'd pay people back if he had any money, which he doesn't.

One bit of misinformation floating from Camp Armstrong is that the FFF somehow got "millions" from donors -- probably not, I'd guess. More likely a few hundred thousand. It was a mostly a PR exercise, in my estimation, not a real money maker.

For the anon. guy...you lost me when you tried to insinuate that my belief belief in transparency and owning one's opinions if you want them taken seriously made me a hypocrite because the blog author suggested providing an anonymous website for doping insiders to tell the truth.

If you have to lead with a Red Herring, I'm sorry, but what follows no longer interests me - and even less so when you disingenuously offer to reveal your identity - at the end of the same *anonymous* post.

One final thought - regarding the comment by Anon (he/she is prolific) that there is "nothing new" in what's going on.

Actually, there's something hugely-new (huuuuuuge lol): the chance for Lance Armstrong to definitely, once-and-for-all, end the suspicion and accusations he seems to think are false, by being judged innocent (or guilty?) in a court of law. I'd think he would welcome the opportunity to secure that endorsement.

Of course, it unfortunately isn't likely to actually address the question of whether he won the Tour doped - as that's not the focus on the criminal investigation, and was for UCI/USADA and other ADA's plus WADA to determine - and, they couldn't catch him cheating (which isn't to say he didn't, because as we all can finally admit: "never tested positive" does not equal "never doped" - all it means is "they never caught me doping via an anti-doping control." Heck, I "never tested positive" from 2001 until May 2006, and can assure you that I was deriving a benefit from doping in one way or another every time I provide a urine sample for a control during that period. They only caught me at the end, because of a mistake somewhere.

"you lost me when you tried to insinuate that my belief belief in transparency and owning one's opinions if you want them taken seriously made me a hypocrite because the blog author suggested providing an anonymous website for doping insiders to tell the truth."

There was a post suggesting that there be a "Wikileaks" for people to anonymously post what they know about doping. That is what I was referring to. I found it ironic that I was getting flack for posting anonymously at the same time others were advocating for anonymity.

Regarding Loren Mooney's article. Do you think she wrote the book for the money irregardless of whether it was accurate? My read was that she felt deeply betrayed. I agree the amount he claimed to raise is exaggerated.

Does anyone know if Floyd was paid for his TV interview? Just curious.

I don't have any factual evidence that proves Landis is trying to resurrect his career other than the snub from RS and following events. I should have made it clear that it is only my opinion based of what I perceive of his previous actions/motivations. My read is that he is really only interested in what is good for him. I certainly could be wrong. He could be overwrought with guilt and feels a need to be honest. Only he knows his true motivation.

Armstrong=Madoff? Really?? I have not met anyone who lost their life savings because they bought a yellow bracelet or contributed to his charity. In the end they may feel let down but I think Lance (rightly or wrongly) made a lot more people rich than Madoff.

Yes I do think that the fact he set up a huge foundation that has benefited many families worldwide dealing with cancer will help him immensely. Legally I would call it "mitigating circumstances".

Finally don't underestimate the public's willingness to forgive. No matter what happens I think there will be a perception from many that if he did dope he did so during a time when all the top riders were also doping. Kind of like smoking pot in the 60's. OK maybe that is not a good analogy but it's the best I have.

Philip : If you're the one who commented before, it was not my intention to intimidate your "anonymous" status. It was me who posted on Twitter that it would be nice to have a "wikileaks" type setup for cycling where anonymous sources come feel free to share information about doping, before checks are made on it as to its credibility. That does not equate to anonymous posters signing on my blog and commenting away, in a mundane conversation. The difficulty in identifying anonymous posters is getting to be a headache .... but this is understandable, as I understand people want to express themselves without losing their reputation. That's fine, I have no problems with it.

Yes I commented before. I have no problem identifying myself. I just assumed I needed a url to post w/ my name & do not have a url. Thanks to the poster who clarified. I was a little surprised about the reaction.

Personally, I think Wikileaks is going to do more harm than good in the long run. But that is another discussion entirely.

A point I forgot to address... I do not condone LA attacking Greg LeMond. Nor do I condone Landis (his agent, whatever)attacking Greg L (although I am glad they are now on civil terms). We could go back and forth ad-nausem on this stuff. It is not worth keeping score.

My real issue is with the unwavering posture that "just because LA did not test positive does not mean he is clean". Let me be clear - I am NOT saying that I believe he is clean. What I am saying is that there is a reason the Innocence Project has chapters in every state. People get convicted who look very guilty but are not.

It bothers me when people draw definitive conclusions without definitive facts. Again, not fighting you and not sticking my head in the sand. I realize you feel the proof is there. But in a case like this no matter what you believe it is up to investigators to prove something happened, not up to LA to prove something did not happen. That is the basis of our justice system. When people have to start proving they are innocent rather than prosecutors having to prove they are guilty we are in trouble.

Can someone tell me why Landis isn't being prosecuted for perjury. Also is anyone putting together a civil suit against Landis for fraud, collecting money for his legal defense based on a lie? I'd sure want my money back had I been dumb enough to give him any.

Also, like all you LA haters! I've worked really hard to succeed in my job. And like you, I've used my money to start a charity. I've donated my time. I motivate and inspire others and I've raised 10 times my large salary to help keep people alive. So like you I am really want to make sure justice is done. As we all know doping has been rampant for decades. We should definitely make sure the sports top athlete be taken down. You know, the one who helped increase the reach of cycling, brought numerous sponsors in, and helped grow the sport thru out the world. Oh yeah and started a little charity.

There is no doubt the money is better spent on the investigation of Lance than on investigating ways to eliminating doping in the future. Lets just make sure we get Lance. I really hate people that try and cure cancer! I'd rather be a broke drunk like Landis and Lemond. Oh wait, I am! I guess I was lying earlier.